Soapbox: CSU focus should be on improving education

When Jack Graham announced his “big dream” to build a new football stadium on the academic campus at CSU, there had been no investigation, no feasibility studies, no conversation with the city nor vetting that normally precedes decisions about a project of this size, impact and expense.

He announced that donors would “give” us this stadium. Yet these athletic donors provide just 14 percent of the athletic budget and do not pay for the millions of deficit spending for football.

Although faculty had been on pay freeze for four years, Jack Graham spent around $4 million to find and pay 10 football coaches. More than half the athletic department’s revenue comes from student fees and university subsidy.

Half the athletic budget pays for football. In a nationwide trend, attendance at football games has been declining. At Colorado State University, athletic ticket sales are less than 8 percent of revenue.

The $125 million stadium guesstimate doubled, yet the Board of Governors determined these donors need to raise just half the money, not including costs imposed on CSU and the city. City councilman Wade Troxell estimated the stadium would impose $30-$50 million in city infrastructure adaptations.

CSU will move dorms, streets, greenhouses and agricultural research plots and pay for debt. There is also the value of 15 acres of public taxpayer land diverted from education to the athletic department.

PR, visionary speeches and marketing have substituted for rigorous scrutiny. After-the-fact feasibility and economic impact reports generated from the builder directly conflict with economic analysis and studies. Last September, Dr. Andrew Zimbalist, a foremost sports economist, spoke at the main library regarding college football and stadiums with special reference to CSU. The Coloradoan chose not to cover his talk.

Yet they published a misleading headline claiming $142 million in economic impact. Half of this was temporary construction. The other report ignored the impact of Hughes stadium, escalated attendance figures and predicted employment of 750 people, not professors or adjuncts.

Added classroom space is lipstick on a pig. More students require more high-tech classroom space, offices, professors/adjuncts, laboratories and dorms; everything associated with education, research, growth and improvement of CSU as an institution of higher education. That land should remain dedicated to this outcome.

According to CSU budget reports, faculty generates at least 85 percent of operational revenues for CSU. Another 7-10 percent comes from the state taxpayer.

Why have athletic donors been granted such power and leverage to dictate development of CSU and Fort Collins?

Students borrow to get a college degree. The quality of the faculty, departments and student services determine the quality of the education. Highly ranked, profitable schools, such as Harvard and Northeastern, do not have big time football. These schools spend less on athletics while supporting more student athletes, more fairly balanced between genders and among sports.

Claims that CSU needs football and a new stadium for visibility, donations and to attract students is exactly backwards: It is faculty and staff who are vital to the success of CSU. They run the educational, service and research programs that define CSU, inspire donations and generate the revenues that pay for athletics and football. They provide the economic stimulus.

Leadership at CSU should keep the focus on providing quality in higher education, where the money is. They should raise funds to renovate Hughes instead, just as other universities do with their aging stadiums.